New 'EZ' E-6 film developer announced under Edwal brand

On the back of the re-introduction of some Kodak Ektachrome films a U.S. photographic company has announced it will begin sales of its own slide developing kits under the Edwal brand. Edwal has been associated with photo chemistry for some time, and US photographic distributor OmegaBrandess owns the rights to the name and intends to produce E-6 chemistry kits aimed at making transparency development easier for the home user.

The Edwal kits will contain developer, color developer and a single bleach/fix solution, and will be available in 1-quart/946ml and 1-gallon/3.8l sizes. The company claims the chemicals offer users some degree of flexibility with development times and the temperature of the solutions without adverse effects on the film.

The 1-quart kit will cost $59.99 and the gallon kit will be $134.99. For more information see the OmegaBrandess website.

Press release

OmegaBrandess Press Release

As the owner of the well-known EDWAL brand of photo chemistry, OmegaBrandess is proud to introduce the EDWAL E-6 32 OUNCE AND 1 GALLON DEVELOPING KITS.

The overwhelming popularity of the recently announced Kodak Ektachrome film has spawned renewed interest in at-home and small batch film developing. To meet that demand OmegaBrandess Distribution is offering E-6 developing kits for the students and hobbyists out there to develop their own color slide film.

Now available at many photo retailers are a 1-quart and 1-gallon developing kit under our Edwal branding.

Each kit contains Developer, Color Stabilizer, and Blix- all the chemicals needed to process E-6 film. Easy-to-use liquid allows for variations in time and temperature! Also available at OmegaBrandess.com.

PricingThe suggested retail price is $59.99 for the quart kit and $134.99 for the gallon kit.

About OmegaBrandessOmegaBrandess has manufactured and distributed photographic and imaging products for over 75 years. A privately held company, OmegaBrandess supplies the photography industry with over ten thousand products from dozens of branded lines. For more information about OmegaBrandess and its represented brands, call 410-374-3250 or visit www.omegabrandess.com.

It really doesn't matter if you dump the chemicals down the drain since we are not doing anything about climate change. So just like the excuse used by the government in the case of relaxing car emission requirements and power plant emission requirements... these things are insignificant once you realize the environment is doomed, you may as well live it up now.

I did some B/W film and print at home and it was easy, color is difficult especially temperature control, and the chemicals are more poisonous, I just wish Polaroid or others re-introduce the 35mm processor for small volume hobby use.

IMO, C-41 is pretty forgiving in terms of temperature control. I have done hundreds of C-41 rolls at home the ghetto-est way and have never ruined a single one. Granted, I scan my film, so colors can be easily corrected in post.

Do you want to hit the Kodak and Fuji specified targets for a specific film, or is some amount of variation from specifications and lack of repeatability acceptable? Do you want the film to have its maximum permanence, or do you not care about that? (E.g. once it's scanned it doesn't matter if it fades over time.)

Are you trying to save money or do you just want to have some fun processing slide film?

This kit looks just like the Unicolor kit. I think it can process 8 rolls of 36ex or 120 but that will have some variation from batch to batch as you re-use the chemicals. Cost is around $8 a roll then depending on cost of shipping. (@List price.)

I have a hard time believing that any three step process achieves the same image quality and permanence that the 6 step Kodak commercial method achieves. So if you are an enthusiast of film and want the best results, why use this unless you can't find a good lab?

I've used the Tetanal an Unicolor kits, and was satisfied with the results. Since those kits had an effective stabilizer (formaldehyde-photoflow) final step, the dyes have held up well (IMO) over two decades (dark storage). YMMV.

Yes people can be satisfied with the results. But unless you have the identical images processed in a 6 step system that is hitting the sensitometric specs, you won't know if you would have preferred the images processed that way. If you do your home processing consistently, you can adjust your shooting to match it. But you may not be getting the most out of the film.

How each process stabilizes the results is beyond my knowledge. The commercial Fuji E6 process did not stabilize in the last step as the Kodak process does.

Tempting, tempting, although I'd probably choose Unicolor. I can't afford an expensive DSLR - I could buy a lot of Ektachrome and developer for the price of one of those babies - and the bridge camera I use simply doesn't come close to the color fidelity and contrast range of film. So I keep my classic K-1000, and T-70, and developing kit and will someday - promise - shoot at least one roll of film and develop it. All I'll need is a plastic dish tub, a fish-tank heater, and a Weston thermometer. Kodachrome is far superior to Ektachrome (and far, far, far superior to that garish Velvia stuff) but we take what we can.

I'm puzzled by this E6 slide revival. I think negative films can still solve problems that digital can't (such as remarkable highlight tonal compression), but E6's benefits are a mystery.

We were forced to only shoot with E6 during my first year in photography school during the early Noughties because it was so unforgiving with exposure latitude and colour balance. It was a great tool for revealing technical sloppiness. Publishers also demanded images as slides back then, but this requirement has pretty much disappeared. Compared to slides, digital does everything better from a technical standpoint for colour imaging.

I don't know, I still like the Velvia 50 colors and I still take pictures with it. At least with a film camera I don't have to read about constant on-line whining about how the (supposedly still picture) camera doesn't do video or it doesn't have IBIS.

Heh... the online whining back then was still there, just more effort needed to find it and participate (nntp newsgroups). I seem to remember the hot topics being "AF is for amateurs" and "this SLR is no good because it needs batteries". Good times.

Good grief, I remember my commercial photography apprenticeship in the mid 1980's, buying sheet film by the case so as to stay within the same batch, then using only one lab to maintain colour consistency. Then there where reciprocity issues to deal with when lighting room-sets with multiple flash pops in order to get anywhere near f/32...... the list goes on and on (don't mention every shirt I owned had dev stains under the armpit from cooking polaroids under there). #filmnothanksbeenthereandgotthestainedteeshirts #havefunkids

I'd go even further and suggest that for all colour work you should go digital, and that the only use for film is B&W for darkroom wet prints. There's something lovely about making a decent darkroom print that no amount of technology can replace. Saying that, i've not printed for a while.

@mxx I have many friends who shoot old world wet plate Collodion with period lenses, their images are to die for, and I totally get that *unique* look/aesthetic. But roll film has long been surpassed by digital IMO, none of my old RB67 trannies scan anywhere near the "quality" of the most basic modern 135 digital camera. On a side note, I think the smart kids can fake the *film look* better than actually scanning modern reformulated (faked?) rebranded films and chemistry.

Some of the posts here have little to do with the announcement. What I don't see is information on how many sq. in. of film can be processed with a one quart kit. And what is the usable shelf life for results within a given level of variation?

@nycgazelle: we all know that there is a thing called general price trend, but why should, of all possible figures, the progression of rent in LA, which I gather is characterized by an *exceptionally* steep rise over the last few years, be a sensible indication that everything else would necessarily have to have become more expensive, too?

It would make more sense for me if it came in one liter quantities. I use a Jobo processor which needs 500ml for four rolls. Wonder if it can be diluted without consequences. Anyway, this is way to expensive.

It isn't just LA. As Eric said, EVERYTHING is far more expensive. Even in cities that used to be really really affordable. The companies making the product have to make money so their employees can live/survive. The world runs on money and I never complain about the cost of things that I want to use, like this new chemical process.

I wonder too about the wet-printing, it does have a vastly different aesthetic, no better, just different. Scanning my old archive with a modern scanner (42MP Sony sensor straight into Capture One) gives me a completely different aesthetic to wet-prints under a cold cathode enlarger. In fact, an underexposed digital file processed in Capture One gets me closer to an analogue print aesthetic from my archive. Interesting topic non the less! Edit: Scanning film grain and running it through a digital workflow to my eye looks different than shooting a clean digital (underexposed for highlights) file then *adding* Capture One's superb grain simulation (Truegrain 2 is superb also).

Unless you have a local silver recycler, the shipping cost and recycling cost of the the minor quantities of spent bleach-fix (where the silver resides) is going to overwhelm what you recovery. Not that it an't be done, you need a LOT of spent chemistry to make a profit.

Think, X-ray film. It's MUCH cheaper to recover the residual silver FROM THE FILM, that from the fixer (although the old steel-wool trick make it possible). No hazardous chemistry shipping, and a WHOLE LOT more silver available.

How much silver is available from 6 rolls of 36 exposure 35mm E6 film?? In color neg film, it's about 2-4 troy oz per 1000 square feet. One roll of film is about 52,000 square mm. or about 1.6 square feet. Six rolls makes that about 10 square feet. So you are recovering, at most, 0.04 troy oz of silver from this kit's Blix. At about $16 per troy oz, that's about 64 cents...

Who is gonna stop outta their way to collect a quart that has, at most, 64 cents worth of silver?? If you are LARGE processor, with large carboys of spent blix or fixer, things can be different.

I have between 15-20L of spent chemicals that they are more than happy to pick up. And no, they don't live next door, nor are they my cousin. Like what I said, talk about things that you actually know. This one you don't know where to start...

We have a photo club and that's what we use every 2-3 weeks. Metal recovery is a lucrative business. They reclaim everything from AL to copper, silver and gold,etc. from chemical process refuse. Not sure what you are refuting here. This is decades and well established business.

Film is nice...for as long as it lasts. 4x5 on film beats every digital superduper camera, sure, but for 35mm its a no go. Don't get me wrong. I love(d) my Agfa APX 25 shots. Super sharp, nice tones, perfect when printed on Ilford multigrade barite paper. It gave me a lot of pleasure in the early 90's.

However, digital is cheaper, cleaner (in environmental waste terms) and way faster in this racing world. Printing with ink has become an art in itself which I love too btw.

If I need to I would be able to go back to the old days. I'd rather not and have as much fun if not more with what technology offers now.

Would you make your work trip each day with a hand started Citroën Traction Avant or T-ford? I'd rather stick with my hybrid these days. (Sorry, can't afford a Tesla (~Leica) )

"cleaner (in environmental waste terms) and way faster in this racing world."

Well, it may or may not be. I have not seen much data to support this. The worst pollutant in film process is the silver, which is taken out because of its obvious value. The rest are not more dangerous to environment than your typical household waste....

Kudos to all using film. But I have one caution about processing. I have Ektachromes from the 70's. Some were processed by Kodak, some by what was then considered the best independent lab.The Kodak-processed ones have kept their original color balance to a remarkable degree. The independent lab processed ones have color shifted to a fair degree.All have been from the start stored under identical conditions of humidity and temperature._If_ Kodak offers processing again, and if I wanted my transparencies to last as long as possible, I'd use the Kodak processing.

That's because the independent lab didn't use a post stabilizer / formaldehyde bath. Can't see as I blame them given formaldehyde is a known carcinogen. Try maintaining a professional E-6 line with a respirator and see how you like it.

i'm still using film. mostly the canon eos 1n, and sometimes a 645 systems. i also have a 4x5 camera which is insane (200-300mp scans, huge prints at 300dpi etc)...

in my view, film has some beautiful depth, dreamy look and magical colours. especially greens. i haven't seen "the digital greens" that can match analog ones yet...maybe the older medium format ccd backs, but that's all.

I still shoot film. Mostly black and white. I find that film slows the process of photography down for me. And I can make use of a small but beautiful collection of film cameras that I have that otherwise would be shelf-queens. And I can't tell you how many great conversations I have had with people because of the fact that I might have pulled a film camera out of my bag.

I like taking photos on film. The cameras I have are fun. I work with digital almost every day, but it's so cool to hold medium format slide film and see the image. And I develop at home. I know it's stupid, but every time I open the tank and there are images in the film, I feel it's almost magical.

Most cameras are relatively cheap and if you don't shoot everyday, the cost of film and develop aren't a big problem.

i tried to shoot manual on DSLR, but it is not 100% accurate result as picture i wanted to take. like focusing, exposure, motion blur.... I can try again immediately. but how would you know about that on film? i had using film camera since 1990s but it cumbersome and never feel i need it again after early 2000s.

...And it's only about the medium when film shooters can't produce decent work with digital. Still trying to figure out why anybody wants to take digital pictures of film (film scanner) than digital pictures of the original scene unless you are flat so devoid of vision and technique you need industrial film dye as a random number generator. My drum scans of 6x7 can't keep up with my FF capture...not sure what you guys are doing wrong,

@scott Eaton. My CCD full frame Hasselblad has the most delightful image quality I could ever ask for digitally. When I shoot side by side with same body only with a film back and film, I get something that still is far more moving and special. Film exists for a reason and its making a comeback for a reason. Is it technically superior? Is it sharper? Do you get more resolution? Hell no...digital has it beat. But the look of the images is far more special than most could create with a digital system. If you aren't making compelling images with 6x7 drum scans then I'm not sure what you are doing wrong.

I have not seen any scanned-film photos look appealing with typical dull and flat colors and tonality, low DR etc. I cannot see your prints nevertheless. Personally I have little experience with film as when I grow up the digital is already start getting popular so I don't have a burden of film legacy and never miss it.

Why does it bother you that film is still being used? I don't see how that should threaten you as nobody is forcing you to use it. Perhaps you feel insecure about your choices and need validation by sneering at others who think differently.

Why does it bother you that film is still being used? I don't see how that should threaten you as nobody is forcing you to use it. Perhaps you feel insecure about your choices and need validation by sneering at others who think and choose differently.

@vscdLOL, CDs itself are soft of outdated now. I am not surprised that vinyl outsells CDs now.And about the beamer/projector, I wouldn't go that route. I would scan the film and then process the scan digitally. Problem is the good scanner for larger film formats. The Hasselblad Flextight costs a whoppy US$25,000

dan_darkroomIt's not about what you normally do, it's about showing pictures from, for example, an expedition... if you want to show a big audience your travel-pics, nothing beats a mediumformatprojector. Even if you get a reasonable good expensive 4k Beamer it's only a *fraction* of the resolution possible with slides.Universities still often use that advantage.

Some people seem to think that filmphotographers are living in the past. No, both technologies go hand in hand and have their advantages/disadvantages. Nothing beats film in size. Try to get large format photography for digital sensors...

CDs are outdated, but vinyl is even older and worse... so why is it rising again? Because there is more to music or photography than plain specs of fidelity or sharpness.

it is like why do you do oil painting, you can print the picture... its about medium...and the way it renders..Ever wonder why instagram filter, mastin, VSCO so popular? because they try to mimic film..

As part of a discussion with friends we tried something. Good old tmax 100 in a pentax 4.5x6 and the same scène with a Nikon d810@ iso 100. Both printed on about A2 format with the best postprocessing we could think of.

None of us six could tell the difference at a viewing distance of about a meter......

The Panasonic FZ1000 II is a worthy successor to the company's first large-sensor, long-zoom bridge camera, and a value-conscious rival to the popular Sony RX10-series. It's just as fast as its predecessor but produces nicer JPEGs, has significantly improved controls and interface, and more.

Latest buying guides

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that might be a bit older but still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

Believe it or not, there are still people that like to print out their photos and create photo books to send gifts to family members. We looked at five popular photo printing services and have chosen the best.

If you are looking for a fun photography project to try, Mathieu Stern has a neat idea for you. Using the 'anthotype' process, Stern used only beetroot juice, paper, a photo positive and a bit of time in the sun to create a phytotype photograph.

Cameras' video capabilities just keep getting better. But what if you're not interested in video? Here's why you probably won't get stills-only versions of most cameras, and why they wouldn't be cheaper, if you did.

DxO has announced Nik Collection 3. The popular plugin suite includes a new Perspective Efex plugin for fixing distortion and adjusting perspective, bringing the total number of plugins in the suite to eight.

The term 'computational photography' gets used a lot these days, but what exactly is it? In this article, the first in a three-part series, guest contributor Vasily Zubarev dives deep to show us how photography will work in the future.